Colleges And The Church
While truth does not change, human beings often do. Battles that are fought and considered won in one generation must often be fought again in succeeding generations. When I was a boy, the question of colleges in the church budget was an item of intense discussion. A few years later, it was very generally agreed that the college was an adjunct of the home and was not to be supported by donations from the church. Most brethren agreed that colleges in which the Bible was taught could be conducted by Christians and supported by individuals so long as they did not infringe upon the contributions given to the church. But this battle must now be fought again, for many of my brethren and friends are now advocating that the church can donate to colleges as well as to other human organizations. Actually, church donations to colleges and all other human institutions (such as benevolent homes and hospitals) stand or fall together. They can pretty well be dissolved by one discussion. If church donations can be made to one, I see no reason why they cannot be made to another. In the April 16, 1959, issue of the Gospel Advocate there are several significant statements concerning colleges. I should like to comment upon these under two headings:
I. The Relative Importance Of The College To The Church
Many brethren seem to think that the colleges are essential to the growth and progress of the church — that the church cannot go forward in a manner pleasing to the Lord without the college. One of the most frequently asked questions of any preacher is, "Which one of our (?) schools did you attend?" I do not for one moment believe that the college is essential to the prosperity of the church. But that many do can be seen from their articles of praise for the colleges. In the above-mentioned Advocate I quote from an article concerning the change of A Christian Church preacher:
It is basic to the future usefulness of such men, we believe, to have at least a year's residence on a campus of one of our schools.
I have nothing but praise for the one who recognized the error of the Christian Church and was willing to leave it. His courage is commendable. According to his statement he left because he believed the truth was to be found in the church of Christ. What led him to that conclusion? The only thing that could have done so was his study of the word of God. The truth is found only in God's word. New, why is it "basic to the future usefulness of such men . . . to have at least a year's residence on a campus of one of our (?) schools?" If a study of the Bible leads people out of denominationalism, why will not a study of that same word be sufficient for their future usefulness? Are "our schools" becoming seminaries of the church of Christ? Must we go there in order to know the doctrine of the church of Christ? If it is "basic to the future usefulness of such men ... to have at least a year's residence on a campus of one of our schools", then why would it not be basic for every preacher to have such? The purpose of his going to "one of our schools" is not to obtain a college education — he already holds a master's degree. How many souls could be won in this same year by preaching God's word — the same word that led him from denominationalism? No, I do not object to the college; they are good and right in their proper place. But for the life of me, I cannot see that the future of the church is dependent upon the colleges. I do not understand why so much emphasis must be placed on preachers' attending "our schools". I am not trying to discourage one's getting a college education, but I believe the rule of proper values should be applied here. If all of "our schools" should decease this very night, the church of our Lord would continue in all of its power and force in the world and just as many souls would be saved for the Master's 'glory. If not, why not?
II. The College In The Church Budget
In the same issue of the Advocate there is another report that is enlightening:
The contribution at Charlotte Avenue Church on March 29, toward the support of Christian education at David Lipscomb College, amounted to $1,329.85. Contributions to Lake Shore Home for Aged, Nashville Christian Institute and Tennessee Orphan Home have been designated for the remaining fifth Sundays of this year. (Page 252.)
I do not believe that I misunderstand this statement. The fifth Sunday contribution of the Charlotte Avenue church was given to the support of Christian education at David Lipscomb College. If this is not a clear-cut case of church-donation to a college, what is it? Further, contributions will be made to Nashville Christian Institute, another school, one of the remaining fifth Sundays of this year. May I ask the age-old question, "By what authority?" Where is scriptural authority for the church's donating money to any other organization? Bible authority is essential to the right of such a practice. May I say to you — my brethren who believe in church support of benevolent organizations but who deny the right of the church to support colleges — can you not see that all stand or fall together? If it is wrong to donate to one human organization, why is it not wrong to donate to another?
As the door opens for one innovation, it is not closed for the next. It remains open for any and all innovations. The door that was opened for the missionary society was used for instrumental music. The same door was used for "open membership", ritualism, centralized control, and modernism in the Christian church. The doors that are now open for church support of benevolent institutions are standing ajar for church donations to colleges. That same door allows recreational activities to enter the church. That open door will produce another denomination shortly. In our modern day we travel at tremendous speed. Such is evident even to the casual observer!
When will we stop travelling the road to digression? Only when we come to realize the all-sufficiency of God's revelation as our authority.